fidelity_batch_orders

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that execution is sequential and dry-run by default, but omits critical traits such as partial-failure behavior, atomicity, authorization requirements, and the irreversibility of live orders.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no wasted text, and the key scope and dry-run default are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a high-stakes batch trading tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete schema coverage. The description should explain preview output, partial-failure semantics, and confirmation requirements, but it does not.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description needs to compensate but largely does not. It adds the useful notion of market/auto-limit orders and one-account scope, but does not explain the orders array structure, quantity/action constraints, or account_number format.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action, resource, and scope: running several market/auto-limit orders sequentially in one account. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like fidelity_place_order or fidelity_stage_order.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'several ... orders one after another' implies this is for multi-order placement, and 'Dry run by default' gives operational guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of fidelity_place_order for single orders or fidelity_stage_order.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.